On Fri, Feb 04 2005, Tejun Heo wrote: > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > >On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:29 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to > >>>>>>> indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy > >>>>>>> value, though slim, there's a chance that something can go > >>>>>>> weird. And while at it, explicit jiffy comparisons are > >>>>>>> converted to use time_{after|before} macros. > >>>>> > >>>>>Same question as for "add ide_hwgroup_t.polling" patch. > >>>>>AFAICS drive->sleep is either '0' or 'timeout + jiffies' (always > 0) > >>>> > >>>>Hmm, what if jiffies + timeout == 0? > >>> > >>>Hm, jiffies is unsigned and timeout is always > 0 > >>>but this is still possible if jiffies + timeout wraps, right? > >> > >>Precisely, if jiffies is exactly 'timeout' away from wrapping to 0 it > >>could happen. So I think the fix looks sane. > > > > > >agreed > > Actually, jiffies is initialized to INITIAL_JIFFIES which is defined in > such a way that it overflows after 5 min after boot to help finding bugs > related to jiffies wrap. So, the chance of something weird happening in > the bugs fixed in patches 11 and 12 isn't that exteremely slim. :-)
And repeat after 49 days, sure. But the odds of it triggering are still extremely slim :) -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/